[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-atlas-ip-local-protect-uturn-01.txt

Subject: Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-atlas-ip-local-protect-uturn-01.txt
From: Alia Atlas
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:33:27 -0400

My impression from the networks that I have analyzed is that most are very close to 100% (average 98%) for coverage with u-turn and loop-free alternates. For a few, I have explored the changes necessary to bring the coverage to 100%; it has been a relatively minor modification. For instance, the modification may be a link that was already planned, a slight modification to a metric, or the like.
Clearly, this is topology dependent, but I think that a topology need not
be substantially more dense than they are today.
The purpose of u-turn alternates is to bring the coverage and network
engineering into that area.
I am more than happy to analyze any topologies and report back the
results. These don't even have to be real topologies :-)

At 08:19 AM 10/28/2004, Thomas Eriksson wrote:
Alia, we have talked briefly at the IETF a couple of times. I am interested in the IP fast reroute concept and hope that we can use it in our network some time in the future. I have a concern however. It is regarding the complexity of designing and keeping the topology so that uturn or even better, loop-free approach gives 100% coverage. Is my feeling correct that you need to keep a very dense topology to reach the 100% goal?

Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>